as a "bad faith litigant for 17 years" and ordered him to be detained for 48 hours in the jail at the Palace of Justice, a sanction that was subject to confirmation by the Court of Appeals. 39. According to information in the public domain, oral proceedings began on August 20, 2019, 19 after the process was instituted.47 40. According to the submissions of the Public Prosecution Service, certain evidentiary exhibits were excluded by the criminal court for various reasons, such as "not having the original because it was not authenticated," and in other instances "because there are no records in the record that were presented by the then-prosecutor (...) who left the case after recusing himself at the request of the complaint.” Thus, the Public Prosecution Service said that "all these evidentiary exhibits, the Marine Corps logbook, were lost during transfers between different courts and tribunals that were assembled and disassembled on various occasions. Without a doubt we are facing a trial of extraordinary dimensions where all the blame has fallen on the Public Prosecution Service (...) putting on my shoulders the non-presentation of evidence after this inordinately long delay, something for which, however, I have no responsibility whatsoever, as the facts show."48 41. The record shows that, in the context of the oral proceedings, the Public Prosecution Service argued that at that time Law 222/93 (Organic Law of the National Police) was in force, and that Article 6, paragraphs 4 and 9 of that Law provided that the powers of the police include the authority to investigate, under the direction of the Public Prosecution Service, acts committed anywhere in the national territory, and to detain persons caught in the act of committing crimes, or suspected thereof, in the manner and for the time established in the Constitution and laws, to inform them of the reasons for the arrest and their rights, and to bring them before a competent judge. In that regard, the prosecution argued that "none of those obligations were met by the personnel of the 11th Metropolitan Police Precinct, who acted with complete irregularity, according themselves interrogation functions at a metropolitan police station, which did not have nor does it have any jurisdiction or competence whatsoever under the laws and the rules that govern criminal procedure to carry out this type of interrogation, without mentioning that those interrogations were carried out under coercion and with the use of force and intimidation; that is to say, under "torture" (...) Nor does the state of emergency give them the necessary legal grounds to carry out this type of interrogation, and in that case, the executive decree that ordered the arrests should have granted special powers to the 11th Metropolitan Police Precinct to carry out some type of investigation, which is not the case because that, in itself, would have been unconstitutional." 49 42. The Public Prosecution Service mentioned in the context of the trial, that according to an authentic copy of a book of records of the Special Forces Headquarters, on May 19, 2000, five police officers were sent, including Mr. Lopez.50 It also mentioned that, according to a book of records used for the health service of the Special Forces Headquarters, Mr. López was attended by Mr. Andrés Gómez Cardozo on May 20, 2000. In addition, it said that the duty medical examiner at the Supreme Court stated that he visited the Special Forces Headquarters together with a judge and declared that "he ha[d] no record of any medical examination having been carried out." Regarding this statement, the Public Prosecution Service said that that examination "took place on May 27, 2000, days after the events of duress and torture that occurred.” It also said that, according to the statement made in the trial by the medical examiner of the Public Prosecution Service, he reported that he accompanied three prosecutors and attempted to make a thorough examination, but found nothing untoward. The Public Prosecution Service added that this procedure "was carried out on July 11, 2000, that is, almost two months after the event that is the subject of this proceeding." 51 “Tras 19 años, hoy debe iniciarse juicio oral y público contra Walter Bower por tortura,” ADN Paraguayo, August 20, 2019, available at: https://www.adndigital.com.py/tras-19-anos-hoy-debe-iniciarse-juicio-oral-contra-walter-bower-por-tortura/. Date consulted: September 10, 2020. 48 Annex 3, Judgment S.D. No. 01 of December 30, 2019, Collegiate Sentencing Court of the Capital Judicial District, State’s brief of November 13, 2020, p. 12. 49 Annex 3, Judgment S.D. No. 01 of December 30, 2019, Collegiate Sentencing Court of the Capital Judicial District, State’s brief of November 13, 2020, p. 60. 50 Annex 3, Judgment S.D. No. 01 of December 30, 2019, Collegiate Sentencing Court of the Capital Judicial District, State’s brief of November 13, 2020, p. 64. 51 Annex 3, Judgment S.D. No. 01 of December 30, 2019, Collegiate Sentencing Court of the Capital Judicial District, State’s brief of November 13, 2020, p. 56. 47 11